This article focuses on the exact wrong reason you want to pick a lightweight framework: file size. Does it really make any difference whether your framework is 300kb vs. 3MB? Unless you're hosting off a floppy drive, no. Total size of all the files in a framework does not really say anything about its speed, scalability, ease of use, etc.

If you're going to compare frameworks to find one that's smaller/lighter and therefore faster and/or more scalable, that's interesting and please show me the benchmarks, but listing a few features and the file sizes of each framework tells me absolutely nothing useful.

Why everyone thinks we compare things in this article? No! It is not a comparisson list. It is a report on new, small and lightweight frameworks that some people may not be aware of.

Sorry, but even if the comparison is not explicit, it's still there. And my whole point is that your title is false: size doesn't really matter for a framework, at least at the size differences you're talking about. This is like comparing cars based on the size of the stereo knobs.

The problem is that the article portrays "lightweight" as "being small in size". Which several others have pointed out here already.

This is like saying, use a micro-framework instead of Struts, .NET, Zend or Rails because of the size of the files.

This is a no-brainer. File size doesn't matter.